ESPN is showing an hour long documentary on the big Gretzky trade in 88. It's on tomorrow at 7pm and the show is called 30 for 30. Just a heads up. It features interviews with Gretzky and Pocklington and talks about how close he was to going to (barf) Detroit.

I read about this today. The doc is directed by Peter Berg who directed the "Friday Night Lights" move, among other things. Then at 9 (central time), ESPN Classic is showing Kings/Red Wings from October 1988, so I'm presuming that's Gretzky's first game as a King.

The 30 for 30 is going to be 30 documentaries ESPN will be airing in honor of their 30th anniversary. Surprised they had time to produce a hockey-related doc.

This whole Direct TV fiasco might speed things along. Sometimes I think that this whole thing is some sort of conspiracy job by someone to get the NHL back on ESPN.

It'd be sweet if there was some type of clause built into the NHL/VS deal that allowed an "out" if this situation continues. Doubtful that Bettman and his baffoons had the foresight to build something like that into the deal though...

Did anyone watch this BTW? I don't think any new material was uncovered but it was interesting to get insight from the major players 21 years later. I felt that he could have gotten more out of Gretzky in a formal setting, rather than just going to the driving range and having a convo inbetween swings. I understand the 1 hour format, but this could have easily gone 2 hours and covered the lasting effects on both franchises, the league, and Gretzky personally. He really was never the same after leaving Edmonton. Sure he still broke all the records and carried the Kings to the finals one year. But overall, he just wasn't nearly as successful as he could have been. Not by a long shot.

Other observations:

1.) Both owners were complete idiots. Especially Pocklington. I realize the package of players he got in return were highly touted at the time. But it seems that he didn't even consult Sather when choosing the players. He could have gotten a hell of a return if he would have just made a few demands. All he saw was the $15 million (US) and didn't look back. IDIOT!

2.) Gretzky was easily manipulated throughout this entire process. He was like a doe in the headlights when it came to this entire ordeal. He let McNall, his father, and his wife manipulate him into moving to LA. I know hindsight is 20/20, but how could he have seen this as a good move?

3.) Even though it helped the sport of hockey to a larger scale than I could describe here. It also put the sport in the position it is today. Sure Gretzky helped grow the overall appeal, but it was too much for the league to handle/understand and they started sprouting up franchises everywhere in a knee jerk response. I know revenue and demand drive business. But did they not understand that business is cyclical and that maybe, just maybe this wasn't wasn't going to happen year after year? I just think that as much as he helped the sport, his lasting effect has also hurt it to a certain degree.

This whole Direct TV fiasco might speed things along. Sometimes I think that this whole thing is some sort of conspiracy job by someone to get the NHL back on ESPN.

It'd be sweet if there was some type of clause built into the NHL/VS deal that allowed an "out" if this situation continues. Doubtful that Bettman and his baffoons had the foresight to build something like that into the deal though...

There would be no out. The problem largely lies with Versus. They owe the NHL this year's rights money even if they're on no channels at all. That deal is largely worthless anyway, so I don't see why they wouldn't just breach and pay the resulting damages if ESPN actually did come calling. Which they won't.

That said, I have seen a fairly significant uptick in ESPN's NHL coverage this year. They ran an NHL preview in that useless piece of kindling they call "The Mag" (douchebags.) They also had some significant coverage on the ESPN home page. I guess it must not be time yet to shamelessly promote the NBA on ABC - you know, an entirely different network. (Who the hell fell asleep at the FTC and let that merger go through, anyway?) Maybe there's some hope for an ESPN return in the future, but you know it's mostly unlikely.

...also had some significant coverage on the ESPN home page. I guess it must not be time yet to shamelessly promote the NBA on ABC - you know, an entirely different network. (Who the hell fell asleep at the FTC and let that merger go through, anyway?) Maybe there's some hope for an ESPN return in the future, but you know it's mostly unlikely.

ABC bought a 15% share of ESPN in January of 1984. In July of '84, they acquired control of the company. At the time, most thought it was a bad investment by ABC. So don't blame the FTC for that one. This happened to be the same year college football on television was deregulated which led to phenomenal growth for the ESPN brand. It wasn't until recently the ESPN on ABC crap started. But ABC has owned the company for 25 years (of course, it's Disney now who bought ABC in the 90s).

He deserved to be one of the highest paid players. It doesn't make him a villain. It's easy to judge these people but in the real world when you have the opportunity to earn millions and millions of dollars, and you only have a small window to pull it off, well, you just have to do it. Loyalty to teams shouldn't have much say... The teams sure aren't loyal to the players in most cases... It's all a business.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum